Legal Opinion
Siddiq v. Ostheimer
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 24, 1998No. 96-CV-1749PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge.
Once a non-binding arbitration award has been filed with the Multi-Door Division of the Superior Court, any party to the arbitration may file with that division a demand for trial de novo within fifteen days. See Super. Ct. Civ. Arb. R. XI(b). Such demand returns the ease to the civil trial calendar. See Super. Ct. Civ. Arb. R. XI(c). The arbitration rules provide, however, that
[i]f the time for filing a demand for trial de novo expires without such action, the Clerk of the Civil Division shall enter the Award as a judgment of the Court as to each party. This…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Starling v. Jephunneh Lawrence & AssociatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Clement v. District of Columbia Department of Human ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- United States v. NunzioDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Francis v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Debose v. Ramada Renaissance HotelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McDaniels v. BrownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- District of Columbia v. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1403District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- MICHAEL T. MARSHALL v. UNITED STATESDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- Angel Bernal v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- District of Columbia v. GramkowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.